Thursday, May 10, 2012
On the President's "Evolving" View Relative to Gay-Marriage 4
And what did he essentially say about it? He said that he was personally in favor of it but that it should ultimately be left up to the states. That's not a courageous position! I mean, how in the hell would he have liked it if LBJ had said that he was personally in favor of doing away with segregation but that he was ultimately going to leave it up to the states to decide. I am telling you here, people, the more that I examine what Mr. Obama actually said, the less frigging impressed I am by it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
#5 is where you go from "less frigging impressed" to condemning him for what he said?
Is "evoultion" on a position the same as a "flip flop?" If its not please explain why it is'nt.
a) He only did it because of Biden and b) he totally hedged his bets ("Yes, I'm for it but let the states decide) while doing it. I'm sorry, wd, if I'm decidedly to the left of you and the President on this one.......It's basically the same, Russ (though I would say that Romney probably still leads him in the # of flip-flops).
A) No, the administration said Obama was planning on making a statement before the convention. The Biden comment only caused them to move the date up.
B) I'm for full marriage equality in all 50 states, by way of Congressional legislation. You're farther to the left than that? Please explain how. I'm very interested in finding out what is "decidedly to the left" of that position.
C) They are not "basically the same". "Evolving" implied Obama was open to changing his mind, which he has. Romney is a flip-flopper because he changes his position for political expedience and then denies he ever held the position he held previously.
a) "The administration said." LOL!!!! b) I'm for full marriage equality in all 50 states AND I'm for articulating it irregardless of political consideration (i.e., Obama and this issue, FDR and that despicable decision of his not to back an anti-lynching bill, etc.). c) I admitted that Mr. Romney was worse on this topic of flip-flopping but it isn't unreasonable to also point out that Obama himself has been doing quite a bit of "evolving" lately. Speaking of Obama, wd, is the first time that you've ever voted for a war criminal? It'll definitely be my first time.
Will: Speaking of Obama, wd, is the first time that you've ever voted for a war criminal? It'll definitely be my first time.
You're attempting to shoehorn an off topic question into this discussion. The last time I tried that you totally flipped out and said all kinds of nasty things about me.
You refuse to say the words, "Obama is a war criminal". And you're doing it simply because a) he has a D in front of his name and b) it's the political season.
These charges are so laughable that the actual authorities reject them as beneath their consideration.
We need to deal with these things in the proper order and prosecute the individuals who lied about WMD and invaded a country that didn't attack us... then maybe we can move on to other war criminals.
They're laughable (this, though I DO believe that you gave them credence when Mr. Chomsky first uttered them) but maybe we can move on to them later. Sounds like a plan to me!
Why are they laughable? Because it's perfectly fine to target civilians if you think a terrorist might be among them? Collateral damage is no problem so long as the people being killed aren't American citizens? Oops, scratch that. Killing American citizens is OK too. What makes it acceptable I guess is that those being slaughtered are Muslim.
"These charges are so laughable that the actual authorities reject them as beneath their consideration." Oh, wait a minute, were you talking about the charges that I was making against you?
Post a Comment